Exposing US-Funded “NGOs”

From Moscow to Myanmar, US-European funded organisations undermine the essential work of genuine NGOs.

A nongovernmental organisation (NGO) is described as a not-for-profit organisation independent from states and international governments. They are funded by donations and facilitated by volunteers drawn from the communities they serve.

Genuine NGOs fitting this description fulfill a vital role within the nations they work regarding issues including education, healthcare, the media, the environment, technology, and economic development.

They often perform their work in parallel with government organisations and may even cooperate with their national government. At other times, the provide a necessary but constructive check and balance to deficiencies present within a state.

However, NGOs can be abused. Foreign governments and financially motivated special interests can use the structure and appeal of NGOs as vectors to project unwarranted, coercive power and influence.

Funded not by the communities they claim to serve, but by these foreign interests, they often operate under the pretext of upholding the legitimate roles and responsibilities of genuine NGOs while in reality undermining a targeted nation’s government, its people, its institutions, and national peace and stability. Ironically, such organisations also undermine the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of real NGOs.

Foreign interests seek to do this for a number of reasons including pressuring a targeted government to make concessions regarding bilateral relations, competing with and eventually overrunning state institutions, and even replacing a nation’s entire government.

How the US State Department Took Over Myanmar’s Ministry of Information

An extreme example of this can be seen in Southeast Asia’s Myanmar, where the Ministry of Information is now firmly under the control of Pe Myint, trained in “journalism” by a US government-funded organisation posing as an NGO, called the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation.

Pe Myint is also a member of a political party supported by a large collection of US and British funded organisations (National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Open Society, USAID, etc.), which in turn was propelled into power during recent elections also influenced heavily by organisation posing as NGOs funded by these same foreign interests.

Previously an independent institution of Myanmar, the Ministry of Information is now firmly under the influence of the US State Department. This may explain uncharacteristic comments regarding “substandard democracy” published by a national newspaper it controls directed at neighbouring Thailand ahead of the August 7, 2016 Thai referendum.

Henceforth, the Ministry has been made to serve the best interests of the United States, not Myanmar, indicated by the fact that its recent comments only risk jeopardising what would otherwise be constructive and beneficial bilateral relations with Thailand.

In this example, foreign-funded organisations not only pressured the government of Myanmar to accept the conditions in which a foreign-backed opposition came to power, but these foreign-funded organisations also helped create an entirely parallel government that are now overwriting Myanmar’s sovereignty.

Recognise the Threat

These foreign-funded organisations masquerading as NGOs are more than just foreign-funded “charities,” “rights advocates,” or “media platforms.” This can be discerned simply by examining the intermediary organisations providing these groups money and examining the special interests and agendas they in turn serve.

The United State National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for example, lists among its 2013 sponsors (.pdf) petrochemical giant Chevron, Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs, US State Department-connected and privacy usurping tech-giant Google and the US Chamber of Commerce which itself represents corporations ranging from defence contractors to oil companies to banks, as well as agricultural and pharmaceutical giants. Individual donors include pro-war Republican politicians including Frank Carlucci, Paula Dobriansky, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Zoellick.

It would be exponentially more difficult for foreign funded organisatons posing as NGOs to attract volunteers and local support if the true nature of their funding was transparently and repeatedly disclosed to the communities they allegedly serve

NED’s board of directors represents a similar and troubling convergence of special interests who directly contradict the alleged purpose of both NED itself, and the many organisations it funds around the world.

Unfortunately, many people who work for foreign-funded organisations posing as NGOs are unaware of such facts. Senior leadership of these organisations often go through great lengths to conceal their foreign funding to avoid scrutiny and even in some cases, to avoid properly paying people who are led to believe no funds are available and thus are asked to “volunteer” to help. Those few who are aware of this funding, are usually unaware of who and what NED and other organisations like them truly represent.

To put it simply, any organisation or institution serves only the interests of those who support it. An NGO supported by local donations and volunteers serves its local community. A foreign-funded organisation posing as an NGO serves foreign interests.

And simpler still, an organisation funded by a foreign government cannot possibly be characterised as “nongovernmental.” Even at face value, this notion strains credibility.

Case Study: Prachatai, Thailand

After being caught concealing foreign funding, Bangkok-based media platform Prachatai disclosed several million baht in US State Department funding, Open Society grants and funds from several European governments.

Remarkably, Prachatai was (and still is) soliciting donations on their website. They also have categorically failed to update their foreign funding in English (since their first and only disclosure in 2011) and have never disclosed their foreign funding to their Thai readers.

US Ambassor Kristie Kenney in US State Department-funded Prachatai’s office in Bangkok, Thailand

Independent journalists attempting to ascertain the true depth of Prachatai’s connections to the US State Department were told that Prachatai had none, and that the money was provided to them unconditionally.

In reality, as revealed by Wikileaks, Prachatai’s staff remains in constant contact with the US Embassy in Bangkok, with US ambassadors and political counsellors making regular visits to their office off of Ratchada Road, and with Prachatai’s director Chiranuch Premchaiporn making regular, lengthy and detailed reports about Thailand’s internal political affairs to US Embassy staff.

In the infamous Cablegate leak, the US Embassy in Bangkok sent off as many as 7 cables regarding or referencing Prachatai and its activities within the country and in particular its defence of agitators attempting to undermine the nation’s institutions and political stability.

For the US State Department, Prachatai exists as a state-funded asset — a constant pressure point to extort concessions from the Thai government with and to coerce from them the settings in which US-backed political forces might take power.

Under the guise of defending “free speech” and “human rights,” Prachatai networks deeply with US-backed political party Pheu Thai, its street front the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD or “red shirts”) and a large number of other US-funded organisations posing as NGOs and academic associations — many of which share the office building Prachatai is currently based in.

Additionally, Prachatai communicates and coordinates regularly with foreign media staff based in Thailand, particularly those who gravitate around the swank Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand clubhouse and bar in downtown Bangkok.

Together they stage public relations events aimed at portraying the current Thai government as overbearing, dictatorial and losing popularity and control. In reality, the events include the same handful of stand-ins and utilise intentionally deceptive methods to conflate the size and impact of each staged event.

By participating in such events, the foreign media betrays the principles it allegedly represent, creating the news rather than objectively covering it. For Prachatai, posing as an NGO but clearly functioning as an extension of US interests in Thailand, it too represents a betrayal of true, community-supported activism.

Ending the Charade

In all honesty Prachatai’s activities could easily be tolerated by the Thai government, if only for one concession — that Prachatai and other organisations like it fully and repeatedly disclosed in English and in Thai, their existence as foreign-funded government organisations rather than pose as a genuine NGO.

Since it has operated for years and failed to fulfil its own responsibilities toward transparency to the society it claims to serve, it may be time for Thailand to pass legislation to force foreign-funded organisations like Prachatai to come clean.

Other nations have adopted comprehensive legislation to help protect real NGOs from those with foreign funding merely posing as such.

The graffiti reads, “foreign agent,” written in Russian

In Russia, legislation now requires foreign-funded organisations to declare on all written material, and verbally declare before all audio statements, their relationship with foreign interests. Those that fail to register as foreign-funded organisations or fail to disclose all of their funding, face liquidation.

While the US and the myriad organisations it was running in Moscow predictably decried the legislation as “oppressive,” some might appreciate the irony of “pro-democracy activists” resisting calls for greater transparency, a fundamental prerequisite for a democratic society.

Foreign-funded organisations posing as NGOs are more than a mere nuisance, or even simply a means by foreign governments and special interests to apply coercive pressure on a nation’s government and institutions. They represent a patient, concerted effort to compete with and eventually fully replace a nation’s existing sovereign institutions. This threat should not be underestimated nor should it be tolerated.

And beyond a threat to national security, these foreign-funded organisations attract and squander a nation’s human resources, while undermining the very legitimate and essential work performed by honest, locally-supported NGOs.

Theoretically, the BBC would probably qualify for designation as an NGO.
Does anyone here truly believe they are independent?
From Reith (allegedly a fascist sympathiser) onwards, the BBC has consistently inclined to the Right.
If anything, it is even more under the influence of the British Government than when it began.

Exactly. It has gotten worse though over the years, much worse. Great playwrights now despair of ever seeing their stuff broadcast on the television, as art and culture have been stamped on by the government. Try listening to the World Service. It’s funded by the Foreign Office too, which makes it even less ‘independent’ than the rest of the BBC. Some of the World Service stuff is brazen propaganda, not even subtle anymore, and they do it so well too. Coverage of Syria and Ukraine is absolutely awful. Last time I was in the US I listened to National Public Radio. People compare it to the BBC, but it’s nowhere near as influential or popular. It’s been castrated as well. It has a kind of Guardian style and concerned voices that sound so mellow at night, but it’s also surprisingly conservative and rarely allows voices that challenge US foreign policy or the character of the economy. I listen to a lot of foreign stations and the same ‘clampdown’ is happening all over Europe. Voices and views reflecting dissent are being weeded out and marginalized. Think, once John Pilger had a column with an audience of millions when he wrote for the Daily Mirror, when it had about the biggest circulation in the western world. Times have really changed.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) or ‘Doctors Without Borders’ is another NGO that seems to have departed from its original cause.
It seems now to be completely under the French Government and acts as an arm of its foreign policy.
It is invariably their facilities that get bombed.
Do they deliberately adopt policies which ensure they get bombed?
If “Yes”, it is highly unfair on their volunteers who do not understand how they are being used in this way.
Unless – that is – their volunteers do understand how they are being used and are foolish enough to go along with it?

One of my daughters is a surgeon and she talked about joining MSF, which scared me, as MSF has been infiltrated by the security services of more than just France, which for obvious reasons is problematic. Fortunately she’s changed her mind.

It’s sad, deeply disturbing, extraordinary and revolting how easily these ‘radical’ NGOs fall into line with US norms and interests… across the world. Has there ever been a more successful propaganda than the government of the United States? Of course this is linked to the colossal influence of US culture as a whole, like films, tv, music, fashion, in a way to be ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ and ‘really alive and free’ is to accept and aspire to be an American. It really is stunning how much of what we define as modernity is linked to the American brand. Wealth, freedom, success, sex, progress, the future; all linked to one hugely influential country and its huge empire that covers the face of the world, clings to it, like the monster in the film Alien.

One of the most important NGOs, one with global reach and reputation, is Amnesty International… is it still called Amnesty, or has it reverted? Anyway, it seems to have been completely taken over by the US State Department and follows a line on most things that’s close to a copy, thought with a different rhetoric that reflects its brand, that comes from the State Department. This is very sad and very dangerous. It seems to have been targetted by the Americans as an organization that was simply too important and influential to be allowed to remain independent of US interests, aims and attitudes. For example, Amnesty’s refusal to designate the political prisoner Manning, as a political prisoner, or even a prisoner of conscience, because this would have consequences relating to how people defined Manning’s imprisonment and the character of his incarceration.

AI take-over by the CIA and the MI6 is an old story. Back in 1990, they were already plugging the bogus baby-incubator story when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Their work, like that of MSF, always needs to be approached with skepticism.

US/Soros-backed NGOs were a key part of the illegal coup in Ukraine. Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland (wife of arch neocon Robert Kagan) said that the US had spent $5 billion destabilising Ukraine and ousting the legitimate president. That coup and the resulting obscene ATO (Anti-Terror Operation) against the people of Donbas has cost an estimated 100,000 lives. More than 1 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia. But the Western presstitute media continue to cover up the crime and concentrate on repeating the vacuous charges against Russia of “aggression”, “annexation of Crimea” and complicity in the downing of MH17 – all because Yanukovich turned down the poisoned chalice of a trade agreement with the EU that would have ultimately seen US/NATO weapons on Russia’s border.

Religious organisations fulfill a largely similar role.
Both Russia and China have imposed controls on them as well.
Now, the “civilised” countries in North America and Western Europe need to do the same.

This is an excellent piece that gets pretty much right to the core of the issue regarding corruption of the purpose of NGO’s.

I don’t like the term NGO as it is a Neo-Liberal concept devised primarily to co-opt or divert the organising power of ordinary people. From a political point of view it is a Trojan Horse. E.G. Trade Unions bad NGO’s good is a mantra we are very familiar with since the days of Thatcher. This in itself to me indicates the invasive intent – which has largely been achieved.

The politics of NGO’s are always suspect at a CEO or board level, although there are many well meaning people who put there energy and time free of charge into them. This is the sad thing that ordinary people are duped into believing that their work is of true value when its purpose is often being corrupted at a higher level.

The reason government funding bodies value them is two fold. Firstly they appear as apolitical independent bodies, but the second and real reason they love them is they are typically undemocratic.

In this sense I depart from the author’s view that transparency is the key although I understand the point of their issues in Thailand. Transparency of funding will not make a difference to the direction taken by the NGO which will not be subject to democratic control. However I do see why many people believe this is a solution, including Russia. Transparency does though serve the purpose of stemming the inflow of monies aimed at subterfuge.

Many if not most Americans have always been in denial about the imperial ambitions and practise of the US. There are honourable exceptions – Noam Chomsky comes immediately to mind – but on the whole the motives of US foreign policy have been regarded by the US public as being conceived in good faith and benign in intent. This America qua global good-guy was very well illustrated in Graham Greene’s novel – and subsequently to motion pictures – ”The Quiet American” set against the background of the first Indo-China war. One of the central characters, Alden Pyle, the ostensibly idealistic young American Aid Worker, presents himself as a proto third-way reformist opposed to the excesses of French colonialism on the one hand, and Chinese Communism on the other. He is in fact nothing of the sort and his motives are soon uncovered by the cynical, world weary British journalist. Thomas Fowler. Under the cover of and aid NGO, Pyle was working for the CIA all along.

Thus US imperialism is the theory and practise which dare not speak its name. In the third world, however, and increasingly in the developed world, the facts are plain for all but the ideologically purblind. The US, particularly since the neo-conservative ascendancy, is a rampaging imperial juggernaut, with a blatant empire-building agenda. The US imperial project was from 1945 onwards held in check by social democratic obstacles in western Europe, the existence of the Soviet and East Asian Communist bloc and national anti-colonialist movements in the south. But with the collapse of communism, the ongoing enervation and retreat of social democracy and the stalling of the anti-colonial struggle in the south the rapacious beast of American imperialism has been let of the leash. Moreover the US has made it perfectly clear that it will not tolerate the reconstitution of any economic or military power capable of challenging its global domination To this end it has given itself the right to wage ‘preventive wars’ against those who may in sometime in the future threaten its global ambitions. The global system is unipolar and the Americans are determined to keep it that way.

This project is assuredly not lacking in ambition. It aims at extending the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ to the whole planet; the establishment of a sort of US global suzerainty. This would be difficult for the US to accomplish alone – it therefore has to form alliances and spheres of influence with other (subaltern) partners in the developed world. Roughly speaking the geopolitical configuration for America’s global project is as follows.

‘’The phase of the (present) global development of capitalism … is characterised by the emergence of a collective imperialism. The ‘’triad’’ – that is, the US, plus its Canadian external province, Europe west of the Polish frontier and Japan, to which we should add Australia and New Zealand defines the area of this collective imperialism. It ‘’manages’’ the economic dimension of capitalist globalization and the political military dimension through NATO, whose responsibilities have been redefined so that in effect it can substitute itself for the United Nations.’’ (Samir Amin)

This requires some skilful diplomatic balancing between the US and its junior partners – particularly within the EU, where conflict between European states and the US is always a possibility. To this end the mobilization of various euro-quisling elites – the UK, Poland, and the ‘new’ Europe – are vital for America’s policy of divide and rule in this area. Moreover the globalization agenda (the economic prong in the US global offensive) has become the received wisdom in the EU. As for the Euro it has become a satellite currency of the dollar, although it is in fact a stronger currency since it is based upon a euro economy which runs persistent trade surpluses.

Thus the EU – with the possible exception of France – meekly follows in the wake of the US hegemon ensnared in an Atlanticist doctrine for which the raison d’etre – if there ever was one – definitively ended with the cold war. And the world pays a heavy price for this. According to Amin:

‘‘The US economy lives as a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no national savings of its own. The world produces while North America consumes … The fact is that the bulk of the American deficit (on Federal and Current Account) is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South, rich oil-producing and comprador classes from all regions in the Third World – to which should be added the debt service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The American superpower depends from day to day on the flow of capital that sustains the parasitism of its economy and society.’’ (Amin Ibid)

It is not generally known that the US with its chronic federal and trade deficits is actually on the brink of technical bankruptcy, particularly when long term commitments on Medicaid, Medicare and social security payments are factored into the calculations. According to research carried out by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve, Fed liabilities come to a staggering $70 trillion – this is roughly 5 times the size of the US GDP.

Against this backdrop the foreign policy of the US becomes clear. Its purpose is loot pure and simple. The south must continue to be plundered for cheap inputs and raw materials and in order to do this comprador elites must be promoted who are friendly to US interests. Economic development of course cannot take place in this context as there will be an outflow of capital from south to North. Markets must be opened up to the rapacious incursions of US and other western capitals. Possible rivals – Russia, China – must be regarded as long term enemies and will be divided and marginalised or possibly in 1970s geopolitical jargon ‘Finlandised’. And uppity allies in Europe – like France – must be brought to heel.

Of course this has and will continue to be met with stiff resistance. Most of this has been spontaneous and centred around the crisis in the Middle East, South West Asia and the growing opposition to the reputedly Promethean gifts of globalisation.

Amin identifies 4 aspects of a political programme which would give organizational coherence to this opposition. ‘’(1) A campaign against all American ‘preventive’ wars and for the closure of all foreign US bases, (2) A campaign of right to access to the land, which is of crucial importance to the world’s 3 billion peasants, (3) A campaign for the regulation of industrial outsourcing, and (4) A cancellation of third world external debts.’’ (Op.cit)

One could of course add more to this – capital controls, global minimum wage and labour standards … and so forth. This would only be a beginning however. Amin himself looks forward to the reconstitution of the UN as a forum where the third world and smaller countries could find voice legitimate voice, as opposed to the dominant institutions of the present – the IMF, WTO, IBRD, and NATO which are frankly little more than instruments of US led Triad collective imperialism.

A very good comment that deserved to be submitted to Off-Guardian as an article in itself. Having had my own pieces published here, I think I can safely say that the editors would’ve welcomed it with open arms.

A good analysis of US efforts to keep its world dominance. As Frank suggests, globalization is just an extension of imperialism – except that there is now no other bloc of countries providing resistance, so it really is a new form of global imperialism: economic and financial power backed by military aggression, with disastrous social, political and environmental consequences worldwide.

Whether China and Russia can get their acts together to oppose this remains to be seen. China apparently believes it is benefiting from globalization, despite the horrendous environmental crisis it is now facing.

The EU is useless, and has been taken over by a neo-liberal project. Its manufacturing industry has been practically wiped out, and eco-friendly, family-farm-based agriculture is also under threat. The EU’s military arm is NATO, and this has clearly and legitimately become a concern for Russia, which was in no condition to resist at the time of the Soviet bloc’s breakup, and was apparently caught napping (and/or was out-manoeuvred) by the Ukraine coup d’état, although that story still remains to be fully told.

Sorry, Frank, but don’t hold out too many hopes for France – although post-WWII Gaullist foreign policy tried to be independent of the USA, the last Gaullist president of France was Jacques Chirac, whose second mandate ended in 2007. He was succeeded by Nicolas Sarkozy, who quickly brought France back into the NATO fold, despite not having mentioned the issue during the election campaign. There was no public discussion or debate, and I was surprised at the time by the lack of public reaction – but the French MSM are owned either by the State or by three or four oligarchs, most of whom are also weapons manufacturers.

The French ‘Socialist’ Party (PS) is actually worse than the right. Remember that it was François Mitterrand (a Gaullist, despite having been de Gaulle’s longtime rival) whose approval basically enabled the US to install cruise missiles in Europe in the 1980s, despite considerable public hostility in the then West Germany. If Lionel Jospin, the PS’s presidential candidate in the 2002 elections, had beaten Chirac, it’s a pretty sure bet France would not have opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (this, by the way, was about the only praiseworthy thing Chirac ever did in his 50-year political career).

Since coming to power in 2012, President Hollande has, if anything, made France even more subservient to US policy than his predecessors. France has adopted relentlessly hostile and belligerent anti-Russian and anti-Assad stances – Hollande’s former foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, even called for bombing Damascus and invading Syria.

Finally, the PS has strong Zionist tendencies (as did the rightwing Sarkozy – once again differing from Chirac, who’d been a little more even-handed), as currently exemplified by the prime minister, Manuel Valls, who loudly and frequently proclaims his support for anything Israel does.

The Palestinians have almost nothing to hope for from France, and debate on the issue in the French MSM is limited, the ‘anti-Semitism’ slur being quickly applied to opponents of Israeli aggression and expansionism. It is illegal in France to call for a boycott of Israeli products, for example, and several pro-Palestinian activists have been prosecuted in French courts as a result of boycott campaigns. (The ban does not apply to calling for a boycott of any other country’s products, such as Russia. The argument given is that calling for a boycott of Israel ‘encourages anti-Semitic attitudes’ and is likely to ‘increase racial hatred’, as if the words ‘Jew’ and ‘israel’ were synonymous – which is, of course, the fallacy many Zionists try and peddle.) The anti-boycott ban was first promulgated under Sarkozy and has continued with the present ‘Socialist’ government.

A lot could be said about French hypocrisy – its self-proclaimed secularism – laïcité – for example now exists mainly as an obviously doomed effort to keep Islam invisible. Laïcité certainly doesn’t stop the MSM from wittering on all the time about everything the Pope says and does. There are other examples, but this is already too long and I’m getting away from the point: globalization as the new imperialism.

Yep, you’re right about France and its abandonment of that distrust which De Gaulle always had of the Anglo-Saxons; unfortunately since that time France has become as Atlanticist as the rest of the spineless Euro-elites. But bear in mind I did write this some time ago before Sarkozy came to power.

Frank – the USA is a young country and it has all the emotional attributes of the thwarted ‘terrible twos’ syndrome. Screams and shouts in the supermarket, trying to shame the parents to submit to their selfish desires. You know the sort of thing.

Americans are entirely emotionally unaware of the effects their nation has on the rest of the world and many are genuine racists, being US-supremacists genuinely believing that everyone else must just submit or else. I wouldn’t want to be their wives, I have to say…….

My greatest hope is that the 9/11 truth really, really comes out, not quietly but over months of razing to the ground any hope that decency existed at the highest levels of US Institutions.

Because then, the US people will know what their leaders are capable of doing to them……so they will be open to what they have already done and continue to do to people overseas……..

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.